answer:The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has profoundly impacted the United Kingdom's legal landscape since its incorporation into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act allows British courts to hear cases on human rights issues and to interpret laws, where possible, in a way that is compatible with the rights enumerated in the ECHR. Several high-profile cases and changes in law in the UK underscore the significant influence of the ECHR. Here are some prominent examples: # 1. **Right to Privacy and Family Life (Article 8)** - **Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2005):** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that the UK's blanket ban on prisoners' voting rights violated their right to free elections and necessitated a change in law to allow some prisoners the right to vote, reflecting a tension between UK sovereignty and adherence to European human rights standards. # 2. **Freedom from Torture and Inhumane Treatment (Article 3)** - **A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004):** In this case, the UK's highest court (then the House of Lords, now the Supreme Court) ruled that evidence obtained through torture could not be used in courts, following the principles of Article 3 of the ECHR that prohibits torture. # 3. **Right to a Fair Trial (Article 6)** - **Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2001):** This case demonstrated the ECHR's influence on administrative decisions in the UK, particularly in planning decisions and the right to a fair hearing, thus altering how administrative decisions are made and reviewed in courts. # 4. **Freedom of Expression (Article 10)** - **Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012:** These laws were influenced by the UK's commitment to Article 10 of the ECHR, encompassing the right to freedom of expression. The laws strike a balance between protecting the public from obscene materials and upholding the freedom of expression. # 5. **Prohibition of Discrimination (Article 14)** - **Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza (2004):** This landmark decision by the House of Lords ensured that gay couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples in the context of tenancy succession. The court used the ECHR to read the UK’s Rent Act in a way that complied with human rights standards, specifically regarding the prohibition of discrimination. These cases illustrate just a few of the ways in which the ECHR has required the UK to ensure its laws and practices comply with the broader human rights standards set forth by the convention. The ECHR has prompted legislative changes, influenced court rulings, and helped to reshape the dialogue on human rights within the UK. Yet, the relationship between the UK and the ECHR has also been marked by disputes and debates, particularly concerning issues of national sovereignty and judicial authority.

answer:The United Kingdom's Supreme Court, established in 2009, has ruled on numerous significant cases involving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These cases often reflect broader societal issues and have profound implications on UK law and its alignment with ECHR principles. Here are some well-known Supreme Court cases that involve the ECHR: # 1. **R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)** - This landmark case, widely referred to as "the Miller case," was about the legal process the UK government had to follow to initiate leaving the EU, known as Brexit. The Supreme Court ruled that the government could not trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union without an act of Parliament. While not directly an ECHR case, it had significant implications for the legal landscape of the UK, including rights protected under the ECHR through EU membership. # 2. **R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice (2014)** - This case concerned the right to die and assisted suicide, topics related to Article 8 of the ECHR, which protects the right to respect for private and family life. The claimants argued that the UK's prohibition on assisted dying was incompatible with Article 8. The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of the issue but ultimately stated that it was up to Parliament to change the law on assisted dying, highlighting the tension between judicial and legislative powers in human rights issues. # 3. **R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor (2017)** - This case was a significant challenge against employment tribunal fees introduced by the government, argued on the basis that the fees impeded access to justice and were therefore incompatible with Article 6 of the ECHR (the right to a fair trial). The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the fees were illegal and obstructed access to justice, leading to their immediate repeal. # 4. **R (Hallam) and R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice (2019)** - This case involved two claimants who sought compensation for miscarriages of justice after their convictions were quashed. It revolved around Article 6(2) of the ECHR, linked to the presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court had to consider whether the UK's compensation scheme for wrongful convictions was compatible with the ECHR. The court found that the scheme did not violate the Convention but also highlighted significant issues regarding the rights of those wrongfully convicted. # 5. **R (on the application of Begum) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) (2021)** - Shamima Begum's case involved the revocation of her UK citizenship after she joined ISIS in Syria, raising questions about statelessness and the right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the ECHR. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to a fair hearing did not trump all other considerations, such as public safety, and that Begum could not return to the UK to fight her case in person. These cases underscore the Supreme Court's crucial role in interpreting and applying the ECHR within the UK legal context, often navigating complex interactions between domestic law and international human rights obligations.

answer:The United Kingdom's Supreme Court (and its predecessor, the House of Lords, serving as the highest court until 2009) has dealt with numerous significant cases involving EU law. These cases often revolved around questions of sovereignty, the interplay between EU law and domestic law, and the extent to which EU directives and regulations affect UK legislation and rights. Here are some of the most well-known Supreme Court cases involving EU law: # 1. **Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport (1990)** Although decided by the House of Lords before the Supreme Court was established, the Factortame case is foundational in UK constitutional law and its relationship with EU law. It concerned the rights of Spanish fishermen to register their boats as British under EU law, conflicting with the UK's Merchant Shipping Act 1988. The House of Lords ruled that UK courts could suspend UK legislation contravening EU law, affirming the principle of the supremacy of EU law over national law. # 2. **R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport (2014)** This case examined whether the UK's plans for the High-Speed 2 (HS2) railway network complied with EU environmental directives. The Supreme Court held that EU law did not apply to the general principles of UK parliamentary procedures and that the HS2 project's legislative process did not violate EU law, emphasizing the UK Parliament's sovereignty and the limitations of EU influence over national legislative processes. # 3. **R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)** One of the most politically significant cases in recent UK history, the "Miller case" dealt with the process for triggering Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union to commence Brexit. The Supreme Court ruled that the government needed parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50, underscoring the constitutional principle that only Parliament can change or remove rights established under UK law, including those deriving from EU law. # 4. **Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) (2020)** This case dealt with the interpretation and application of EU law on value-added tax (VAT) concerning the supply of goods and services, in the context of car leasing agreements. It highlighted the complexities of applying EU directives to specific financial and commercial practices within the UK, demonstrating the detailed impact of EU law on UK businesses and tax regulation. # 5. **R (on the application of Gina Miller and others) v The Prime Minister (2019)** While not about EU law directly, the case concerned the lawfulness of the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament for an extended period in the lead-up to the UK's planned exit from the EU. The Supreme Court ruled that the prorogation was unlawful as it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. This case was significant in the context of Brexit and the legal principles governing the separation of powers and executive accountability in the UK. These cases illustrate the profound impact EU law has had on the UK legal system and the significant legal questions arising from the UK's membership in the EU. They also highlight key issues surrounding sovereignty, the role of Parliament, and the balance of power between the UK's institutions and EU governance, themes that have been at the heart of the Brexit debate.

answer:The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has played a significant role in shaping UK law, both directly and indirectly. Its judgments have frequently required the UK to re-examine, amend, or clarify its laws and practices regarding human rights. Below are prominent instances where rulings from the ECtHR have had a profound impact on UK law: # 1. **Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2005)** The ECtHR ruled that the UK's blanket ban on prisoners voting was a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to free elections. This case provoked significant debate within the UK about the balance between respecting the judgments of the ECtHR and maintaining Parliamentary sovereignty. Despite resistance, it has led to ongoing discussions and proposals for reform to allow certain categories of prisoners to vote. # 2. **Dudgeon v United Kingdom (1981)** In this landmark case, the ECtHR found that Northern Ireland's criminalization of consensual homosexual acts in private between adults was a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR, which provides a right to respect for private and family life. This judgment led to the decriminalization of homosexuality in Northern Ireland in 1982, aligning its laws with the rest of the UK. # 3. **Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (1999)** The ECtHR ruled that the investigation into and subsequent discharge of two service personnel from the Royal Navy for being homosexual violated their rights under Article 8 of the ECHR. This judgment was instrumental in changing the policy of the British military, leading to the lifting of a ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces in 2000. # 4. **McCann and Others v United Kingdom (1995)** This case concerned the deaths of three unarmed IRA terrorists in Gibraltar by British special forces. The ECtHR concluded that the operation violated Article 2 of the ECHR, the right to life, due to failures in planning and control. This judgment has impacted the operational procedures of British security forces and clarified the legal understanding of the use of force. # 5. **Al-Skeini and Others v United Kingdom (2011)** The court held that the UK had jurisdiction over the deaths of several Iraqis during its military operations in Iraq and that these fell within the scope of the ECHR, specifically under Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights) and Article 2. This judgment expanded the extraterritorial application of the ECHR and had implications for military operations abroad, leading to more stringent guidelines on the treatment of individuals captured by British forces overseas. # 6. **Vinter and Others v United Kingdom (2013)** In this case, the ECtHR found that the UK's policy of whole-life sentences without any possibility of parole violated Article 3 of the ECHR (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). The court ruled that there must be both a possibility of release and a possibility of review for such sentences, prompting discussions on the review mechanisms for life sentences in the UK. These cases illustrate the powerful influence of the ECtHR on UK law, particularly in advancing human rights protections. The interactions between the UK's domestic legal system and the ECtHR also highlight broader tensions and debates over sovereignty, human rights, and the role of international courts in national legal frameworks.